Do you agree? Is now the time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below.
Is it now time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below
Fracking enjoys widespread support in Britain, according to a new survey.
Research carried out by the research group Populus for UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) found that 57 per cent were in favour of the controversial tachnique which extracts shale gas from the ground.
The poll quizzed 4,000 people and found that 16 per cent were opposed, with just over a quarter (27 per cent) undecided.
The poll shows that the public would like to see the government use both shale gas and renewables to meet the country’s energy requirements.
Do you agree? Is now the time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below.
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
117 Responses to “POLL: Is it time for Britain to frack?”
Mike
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.html
Silvia Vousden
Are you trying to suggest that the objective evidence in the draft report for Public Health England is ‘propoganda’? There are very serious public health issues that have yet to be addressed. The drilling sites in America are largely in unpopulated areas, so any study or report would have to look at highly populated areas to get a reasonable prediction for the increased costs to address the inevitable health problems that would result from fracking in Britain. The cost of the fall in house prices, the insurance hikes for houses near fracking sites and the cost of having to use bottled water for the rest of the lives of those residents whose water tables would be contaminated by fracking chemicals would also have to be factored in, as well as the damaged farmland that would no longer be used for production of crops or grazing livestock. So much for ‘keeping the country running’. Meanwhile the fracking industry would pocket huge profits selling drilling licences to ‘responsible’ companies who strictly adhere to the already inadequate regulations, or would they? One of the things you sign up to if you allow your land to be used for fracking is the right to sue if the complany damages your land, water, property or health in any way.
Silvia Vousden
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23373618. Water companies warn of the danger of contamination by fracking.
itdoesntaddup
I suggest you READ the PHE report. They conclude that there is a low risk to public health arising from developing shale – much to the chagrin of the NIMBYs in Wisborough Green.
On the other hand, the site I linked is full of gross exaggerations about the risks to water supply and from possible induced seismicity. Just as well they’re not fending off a windfarm: calculations show it involves at least three times as much heavy traffic on an energy equivalent basis (and absorbs a large multiple of acerage).
itdoesntaddup
Claptrap from start to finish, although evidently you don’t know it.